No, if by slavery you mean forced labor for nothing--just because you can offer someone a wage of 0 doesn't mean they have to accept it. And no, if by slavery you mean choosing to working for free, because that's already legal--it's called 'volunteering.'

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

At 7/9/2012 2:41:04 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:No, if by slavery you mean forced labor for nothing--just because you can offer someone a wage of 0 doesn't mean they have to accept it. And no, if by slavery you mean choosing to working for free, because that's already legal--it's called 'volunteering.'

I think that's hilarious. We're permitted to work for free and for a wage above $7.25, but nothing in between the two.

At 7/9/2012 2:41:04 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:No, if by slavery you mean forced labor for nothing--just because you can offer someone a wage of 0 doesn't mean they have to accept it. And no, if by slavery you mean choosing to working for free, because that's already legal--it's called 'volunteering.'

I think that's hilarious. We're permitted to work for free and for a wage above $7.25, but nothing in between the two.

Couldn't agree more!

Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler

At 7/9/2012 2:41:04 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:No, if by slavery you mean forced labor for nothing--just because you can offer someone a wage of 0 doesn't mean they have to accept it. And no, if by slavery you mean choosing to working for free, because that's already legal--it's called 'volunteering.'

I think that's hilarious. We're permitted to work for free and for a wage above $7.25, but nothing in between the two.

Couldn't agree more!

If you abolish the minimum wage, you obviously reduce the price of the floor of labor, and cause people to lose purchasing power. This contributes to growing income inequality, which is already dangerous at the current levels.

So you have people who need to work more for the same amount of pay. This may seem just right, but then you have people who must slave to get enough money to earn a more comfortable living. And how are these people supposed to climb the economic ladder? Assuming that Pell Grants and tax credits don't allow them to fully climb out of the burden of college costs.

You end up with hard working people working several low wage jobs, and for barely making a comfortable living — which uses the vast majority of their time, how is THIS freedom?

Yes there are several spots to get out of this trap, for example a business could offer to pay for part of your tuition if you agree to a contract to work for them for several years after graduation. However, it is not likely to find a business willing to do this, and especially rare for this to solve everybody's problems who need a way out of poverty. Second, the training and skills needed are not likely to become available for many in poverty, as their early K12 education was of poor quality. So many are stuck in poverty. And many could have a way out. But to give everybody a fair shot out of poverty, you need to invest considerable financial and educational resources in them to give them Middle Class status. And this requires equal access to opportunity, with government helping out.

So, the minimum wage can help people make a way out of poverty, and help them rise. And if you eliminate the minimum wage, you prevent a person from getting a more comfortable lifestyle, forcing them to give up their liberties and freedom in order to get scant wages and stay in this slave labor trap for their remaining days. While they vote for conservatives who just make the system worse by removing their pensions, their social security benefits after they age, and by removing regulations that protect them.

So yes, abolishing the minimum wage can be referred to as slavery.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

When I finish my debate with RoyLatham over the Affordable Care Act, sure.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

Contra, the current people with jobs are NOT (and will never be) affected by the minimum wage. The ones hurt the most are the unemployed; thus notion that increasing somebody's purchasing power from 0 actually decreases it is sheer nonsense.

Slavery is forced. No voluntary contract can be "slavery."

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 7/9/2012 5:11:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Contra, the current people with jobs are NOT (and will never be) affected by the minimum wage. The ones hurt the most are the unemployed; thus notion that increasing somebody's purchasing power from 0 actually decreases it is sheer nonsense.

Slavery is forced. No voluntary contract can be "slavery."

Eliminating the minimum wage reduces freedom for millions of Americans. So it is not far off. How can you preach freedom while millions of Americans must spend the majority of their time laboring their time away so they can survive?

And companies like Walmart would gladly reduce the employee wages, so they are more competitive. However, our prices would not benefit much, since labor only accounts for about 8% of total costs for the average private company.

I will provide a helpful analogy later.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 7/9/2012 5:11:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Contra, the current people with jobs are NOT (and will never be) affected by the minimum wage. The ones hurt the most are the unemployed; thus notion that increasing somebody's purchasing power from 0 actually decreases it is sheer nonsense.

Slavery is forced. No voluntary contract can be "slavery."

Eliminating the minimum wage reduces freedom for millions of Americans. So it is not far off. How can you preach freedom while millions of Americans must spend the majority of their time laboring their time away so they can survive?

You do realize that a low wage-because of a lack of human capital- is better than no wage, right? Freedom is the right to pursue a profession without arbitrary price floors restricting employment, if you want to engage in pointless definitions.

Ya still haven't answered the economic fact that the minimum wage only affects those who are unemployed.

Also, tone down the rhetoric a tad.... It's annoying.

And companies like Walmart would gladly reduce the employee wages, so they are more competitive. However, our prices would not benefit much, since labor only accounts for about 8% of total costs for the average private company.

Since working in Wal-Mart is a voluntary contract, the workers are free to leave if their wages get lowered- and many will.

Wage lowering detriments to the workplace for several reasons, among which being: A) It lowers the morale of the workers, therefore causing productivity to decrease B) It causes good workers, who have the skills to be accepted elsewhere at higher wages to leave the workplace and C) Puts them in an unfavorable public light.

Companies arent always "money grubby" at all costs.

I will provide a helpful analogy later.

I've seen your excellent analogies.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 7/9/2012 5:11:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Contra, the current people with jobs are NOT (and will never be) affected by the minimum wage. The ones hurt the most are the unemployed; thus notion that increasing somebody's purchasing power from 0 actually decreases it is sheer nonsense.

Slavery is forced. No voluntary contract can be "slavery."

Eliminating the minimum wage reduces freedom for millions of Americans. So it is not far off. How can you preach freedom while millions of Americans must spend the majority of their time laboring their time away so they can survive?

You do realize that a low wage-because of a lack of human capital- is better than no wage, right? Freedom is the right to pursue a profession without arbitrary price floors restricting employment, if you want to engage in pointless definitions.

In a Libertarian, pure free market society, how would people who are not born into wealth become educated? Vouchers require taxes.

Ya still haven't answered the economic fact that the minimum wage only affects those who are unemployed.

It does hurt them, per say, but the minimum wage increases demand and thus causes more economic growth. In fact, empirical evidence has found that moderate minimum wage increases have only minimal or null effects on unemployment.

And companies like Walmart would gladly reduce the employee wages, so they are more competitive. However, our prices would not benefit much, since labor only accounts for about 8% of total costs for the average private company.

Since working in Wal-Mart is a voluntary contract, the workers are free to leave if their wages get lowered- and many will.

Wage lowering detriments to the workplace for several reasons, among which being: A) It lowers the morale of the workers, therefore causing productivity to decrease B) It causes good workers, who have the skills to be accepted elsewhere at higher wages to leave the workplace and C) Puts them in an unfavorable public light.

All great points.

This is somewhat why office's now have "Hawaiian shirt day" on Friday's or informal dressing x days per week, to increase worker morale and productivity, and increase the public opinion of the company. It wasn't because of unions in the '90s.

Companies arent always "money grubby" at all costs.

Frequently Capitalism puts profits first. This is another reason why I favor the progressive tax, it discourages short term profits, which are frequently harmful to workers and communities.

I will provide a helpful analogy later.

I've seen your excellent analogies.

Thank you! But not all of them.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 7/9/2012 5:11:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Contra, the current people with jobs are NOT (and will never be) affected by the minimum wage. The ones hurt the most are the unemployed; thus notion that increasing somebody's purchasing power from 0 actually decreases it is sheer nonsense.

Slavery is forced. No voluntary contract can be "slavery."

Eliminating the minimum wage reduces freedom for millions of Americans. So it is not far off. How can you preach freedom while millions of Americans must spend the majority of their time laboring their time away so they can survive?

You do realize that a low wage-because of a lack of human capital- is better than no wage, right? Freedom is the right to pursue a profession without arbitrary price floors restricting employment, if you want to engage in pointless definitions.

In a Libertarian, pure free market society, how would people who are not born into wealth become educated? Vouchers require taxes.

In the same way that poor people buy food; this notion that education requires governmental subsidation is completely arbitrary.

Also, what does this have to do with the minimum wage?

Ya still haven't answered the economic fact that the minimum wage only affects those who are unemployed.

It does hurt them, per say, but the minimum wage increases demand and thus causes more economic growth. In fact, empirical evidence has found that moderate minimum wage increases have only minimal or null effects on unemployment.

If you read the thing, you would have noticed that he said that the minimum wage did not really produce any demand effects.

What I got from the conclusion was that in specific areas with specific methodologies, the minimum wage had no employment effects (gains or losses). From this, we can conclude that the costs were passed down to the consumer.

However, the paper also states that on a national and a State level, there are discernible relationships between employment and the minimum wage.

Also, tone down the rhetoric a tad.... It's annoying.

Ok.

And companies like Walmart would gladly reduce the employee wages, so they are more competitive. However, our prices would not benefit much, since labor only accounts for about 8% of total costs for the average private company.

Since working in Wal-Mart is a voluntary contract, the workers are free to leave if their wages get lowered- and many will.

Wage lowering detriments to the workplace for several reasons, among which being: A) It lowers the morale of the workers, therefore causing productivity to decrease B) It causes good workers, who have the skills to be accepted elsewhere at higher wages to leave the workplace and C) Puts them in an unfavorable public light.

All great points.

This is somewhat why office's now have "Hawaiian shirt day" on Friday's or informal dressing x days per week, to increase worker morale and productivity, and increase the public opinion of the company. It wasn't because of unions in the '90s.

Yup yup.

Companies arent always "money grubby" at all costs.

Frequently Capitalism puts profits first. This is another reason why I favor the progressive tax, it discourages short term profits, which are frequently harmful to workers and communities.

Of course they do; but they don't just blindly follow the profit, as that causes various negative effects to the companies. In two words: Rational self-interest.

I will provide a helpful analogy later.

I've seen your excellent analogies.

Thank you! But not all of them.

That was meant to be sarcasm, but in reality, your analogies aren't half-bad.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 7/9/2012 5:11:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Contra, the current people with jobs are NOT (and will never be) affected by the minimum wage. The ones hurt the most are the unemployed; thus notion that increasing somebody's purchasing power from 0 actually decreases it is sheer nonsense.

Slavery is forced. No voluntary contract can be "slavery."

Eliminating the minimum wage reduces freedom for millions of Americans. So it is not far off. How can you preach freedom while millions of Americans must spend the majority of their time laboring their time away so they can survive?

You do realize that a low wage-because of a lack of human capital- is better than no wage, right? Freedom is the right to pursue a profession without arbitrary price floors restricting employment, if you want to engage in pointless definitions.

In a Libertarian, pure free market society, how would people who are not born into wealth become educated? Vouchers require taxes.

In the same way that poor people buy food; this notion that education requires governmental subsidation is completely arbitrary.

You didn't answer my question. Would they have to become apprenticed out of luck?

I am serious about his question.

Also, what does this have to do with the minimum wage?

The minimum wage provides a better chance of one educating them self if.

Ya still haven't answered the economic fact that the minimum wage only affects those who are unemployed.

It does hurt them, per say, but the minimum wage increases demand and thus causes more economic growth. In fact, empirical evidence has found that moderate minimum wage increases have only minimal or null effects on unemployment.

If you read the thing, you would have noticed that he said that the minimum wage did not really produce any demand effects.

Yeah, it provides overall no real changes in the job market, as new demand creates the jobs that would be lost from the higher wages.

What I got from the conclusion was that in specific areas with specific methodologies, the minimum wage had no employment effects (gains or losses). From this, we can conclude that the costs were passed down to the consumer.

However, the paper also states that on a national and a State level, there are discernible relationships between employment and the minimum wage.

Also, tone down the rhetoric a tad.... It's annoying.

Ok.

And companies like Walmart would gladly reduce the employee wages, so they are more competitive. However, our prices would not benefit much, since labor only accounts for about 8% of total costs for the average private company.

Since working in Wal-Mart is a voluntary contract, the workers are free to leave if their wages get lowered- and many will.

Wage lowering detriments to the workplace for several reasons, among which being: A) It lowers the morale of the workers, therefore causing productivity to decrease B) It causes good workers, who have the skills to be accepted elsewhere at higher wages to leave the workplace and C) Puts them in an unfavorable public light.

All great points.

This is somewhat why office's now have "Hawaiian shirt day" on Friday's or informal dressing x days per week, to increase worker morale and productivity, and increase the public opinion of the company. It wasn't because of unions in the '90s.

Yup yup.

Companies arent always "money grubby" at all costs.

Frequently Capitalism puts profits first. This is another reason why I favor the progressive tax, it discourages short term profits, which are frequently harmful to workers and communities.

Of course they do; but they don't just blindly follow the profit, as that causes various negative effects to the companies. In two words: Rational self-interest.

I will provide a helpful analogy later.

I've seen your excellent analogies.

Thank you! But not all of them.

That was meant to be sarcasm, but in reality, your analogies aren't half-bad.

I know it was sarcasm. But thank you again.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 7/9/2012 5:11:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Contra, the current people with jobs are NOT (and will never be) affected by the minimum wage. The ones hurt the most are the unemployed; thus notion that increasing somebody's purchasing power from 0 actually decreases it is sheer nonsense.

Slavery is forced. No voluntary contract can be "slavery."

Eliminating the minimum wage reduces freedom for millions of Americans. So it is not far off. How can you preach freedom while millions of Americans must spend the majority of their time laboring their time away so they can survive?

You do realize that a low wage-because of a lack of human capital- is better than no wage, right? Freedom is the right to pursue a profession without arbitrary price floors restricting employment, if you want to engage in pointless definitions.

In a Libertarian, pure free market society, how would people who are not born into wealth become educated? Vouchers require taxes.

In the same way that poor people buy food; this notion that education requires governmental subsidation is completely arbitrary.

You didn't answer my question. Would they have to become apprenticed out of luck?

I am serious about his question.

No. The market will fill a demand. If there are poor people demanding affordable education in the market, someone will come along and fill it. It's called smart business.

Also, what does this have to do with the minimum wage?

The minimum wage provides a better chance of one educating them self if.

Not to the unemployed who can't get a job.

Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.
- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus

At 7/9/2012 5:11:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Contra, the current people with jobs are NOT (and will never be) affected by the minimum wage. The ones hurt the most are the unemployed; thus notion that increasing somebody's purchasing power from 0 actually decreases it is sheer nonsense.

Slavery is forced. No voluntary contract can be "slavery."

Eliminating the minimum wage reduces freedom for millions of Americans. So it is not far off. How can you preach freedom while millions of Americans must spend the majority of their time laboring their time away so they can survive?

You do realize that a low wage-because of a lack of human capital- is better than no wage, right? Freedom is the right to pursue a profession without arbitrary price floors restricting employment, if you want to engage in pointless definitions.

In a Libertarian, pure free market society, how would people who are not born into wealth become educated? Vouchers require taxes.

In the same way that poor people buy food; this notion that education requires governmental subsidation is completely arbitrary.

You didn't answer my question. Would they have to become apprenticed out of luck?

I am serious about his question.

No. The market will fill a demand. If there are poor people demanding affordable education in the market, someone will come along and fill it. It's called smart business.

Ok. And then the business gets the labor from the person who works from them, and they end up getting profit from that decision. I see. What I don't see is how you can educate a person who is 20 years old to become a doctor, even though they haven't had basic K12 education.

Also, what does this have to do with the minimum wage?

The minimum wage provides a better chance of one educating them self if.

Not to the unemployed who can't get a job.

I knew you would bring this up. As we discussed earlier, the minimum wage has really no effects on unemployment overall.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 7/9/2012 5:11:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Contra, the current people with jobs are NOT (and will never be) affected by the minimum wage. The ones hurt the most are the unemployed; thus notion that increasing somebody's purchasing power from 0 actually decreases it is sheer nonsense.

Slavery is forced. No voluntary contract can be "slavery."

Eliminating the minimum wage reduces freedom for millions of Americans. So it is not far off. How can you preach freedom while millions of Americans must spend the majority of their time laboring their time away so they can survive?

You do realize that a low wage-because of a lack of human capital- is better than no wage, right? Freedom is the right to pursue a profession without arbitrary price floors restricting employment, if you want to engage in pointless definitions.

In a Libertarian, pure free market society, how would people who are not born into wealth become educated? Vouchers require taxes.

In the same way that poor people buy food; this notion that education requires governmental subsidation is completely arbitrary.

You didn't answer my question. Would they have to become apprenticed out of luck?

I am serious about his question.

No. The market will fill a demand. If there are poor people demanding affordable education in the market, someone will come along and fill it. It's called smart business.

Ok. And then the business gets the labor from the person who works from them, and they end up getting profit from that decision. I see. What I don't see is how you can educate a person who is 20 years old to become a doctor, even though they haven't had basic K12 education.

What I'm saying is that, whether by business or by charity, people WOULD get that education. You're forgoing a conclusion that was never made.

Also, what does this have to do with the minimum wage?

The minimum wage provides a better chance of one educating them self if.

Not to the unemployed who can't get a job.

I knew you would bring this up. As we discussed earlier, the minimum wage has really no effects on unemployment overall.

It wasn't an agreed to concept.

Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.
- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus

Something missing from this entire thread is the fact that a great many companies hire above the minimum wage to stay competitive. To say companies must always in every case lower their wages to remain competitive is false on its face.

Also, factor in this, prices often bear the burden of artificially inflated wages. (and mandated benefits as well, but let's forget these exist.) Every consumer pays for this loss of freedom and affords a lower standard of living than they could be living were it not for subsidizing inefficient, artificial, central government planned wages.

At 7/9/2012 8:42:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Something missing from this entire thread is the fact that a great many companies hire above the minimum wage to stay competitive. To say companies must always in every case lower their wages to remain competitive is false on its face.

Nah, the 98% of jobs that are above minimum wage aren't above minimum wage because of free-market principles...

Their above minimum wage because... because...

Because people in HR departments have bad handwriting, so payroll often thinks that EmployeeLoser was actually hired at $78,000/year, instead of $7.50/hr.

At 7/9/2012 8:44:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Actually in many ways, this is close to a flat tax in that all consumers pay for the artificial wage increase, but the money only goes to a select few unskilled workers, not the general pool.

The increase in the minimum wage would very slightly increase average prices.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 7/9/2012 8:44:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Actually in many ways, this is close to a flat tax in that all consumers pay for the artificial wage increase, but the money only goes to a select few unskilled workers, not the general pool.

The increase in the minimum wage would very slightly increase average prices.

So the fact that it might have slightly lower negative effects justifies it?

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 7/9/2012 8:44:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Actually in many ways, this is close to a flat tax in that all consumers pay for the artificial wage increase, but the money only goes to a select few unskilled workers, not the general pool.

The increase in the minimum wage would very slightly increase average prices.

What would be a justifiable minimum wage increase to average price increase ratio?

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

At 7/9/2012 8:44:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Actually in many ways, this is close to a flat tax in that all consumers pay for the artificial wage increase, but the money only goes to a select few unskilled workers, not the general pool.

The increase in the minimum wage would very slightly increase average prices.

It is still cronyism, or at least favoritism of a select few unskilled labor voters, even if it is a small percentage of tax-on-goods corruption on the general people.

At 7/9/2012 5:11:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Contra, the current people with jobs are NOT (and will never be) affected by the minimum wage. The ones hurt the most are the unemployed; thus notion that increasing somebody's purchasing power from 0 actually decreases it is sheer nonsense.

Slavery is forced. No voluntary contract can be "slavery."

Eliminating the minimum wage reduces freedom for millions of Americans. So it is not far off. How can you preach freedom while millions of Americans must spend the majority of their time laboring their time away so they can survive?

And companies like Walmart would gladly reduce the employee wages, so they are more competitive. However, our prices would not benefit much, since labor only accounts for about 8% of total costs for the average private company.

At 7/9/2012 5:11:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Contra, the current people with jobs are NOT (and will never be) affected by the minimum wage. The ones hurt the most are the unemployed; thus notion that increasing somebody's purchasing power from 0 actually decreases it is sheer nonsense.

Slavery is forced. No voluntary contract can be "slavery."

Eliminating the minimum wage reduces freedom for millions of Americans. So it is not far off. How can you preach freedom while millions of Americans must spend the majority of their time laboring their time away so they can survive?

And companies like Walmart would gladly reduce the employee wages, so they are more competitive. However, our prices would not benefit much, since labor only accounts for about 8% of total costs for the average private company.

I will provide a helpful analogy later.

What a crock of sh!t.

Suppose this situation:

Jon works at McDonalds. He makes $8 an hour. McDonalds sells 60 burgers an hour. For an increase in the minimum wage of $1, suppose McDonalds increases the wage for all the workers from $8 to $9. There are 9 workers at McDonalds getting this increase.Each burger costs $4.

So, the slight increase in prices results higher wages for all or most of the employees at McDonalds. At only a very slight increase in the price of the average burger. Most people would be fine paying this slight amount in order for the employees to live a more comfortable life, the competitiveness of McDonalds would not be adversely harmed, on the contrary, the employees would be more productive by many estimates and help reduce the negative effects to the employer.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 7/9/2012 5:11:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Contra, the current people with jobs are NOT (and will never be) affected by the minimum wage. The ones hurt the most are the unemployed; thus notion that increasing somebody's purchasing power from 0 actually decreases it is sheer nonsense.

Slavery is forced. No voluntary contract can be "slavery."

Eliminating the minimum wage reduces freedom for millions of Americans. So it is not far off. How can you preach freedom while millions of Americans must spend the majority of their time laboring their time away so they can survive?

And companies like Walmart would gladly reduce the employee wages, so they are more competitive. However, our prices would not benefit much, since labor only accounts for about 8% of total costs for the average private company.

I will provide a helpful analogy later.

What a crock of sh!t.

Suppose this situation:

Jon works at McDonalds. He makes $8 an hour. McDonalds sells 60 burgers an hour. For an increase in the minimum wage of $1, suppose McDonalds increases the wage for all the workers from $8 to $9. There are 9 workers at McDonalds getting this increase.Each burger costs $4.

So, the slight increase in prices results higher wages for all or most of the employees at McDonalds. At only a very slight increase in the price of the average burger. Most people would be fine paying this slight amount in order for the employees to live a more comfortable life, the competitiveness of McDonalds would not be adversely harmed, on the contrary, the employees would be more productive by many estimates and help reduce the negative effects to the employer.

Contra, with all due respect, you are pretty ignorant at basic economics. You don't raise prices at low profit margin competitive fast food resturants without seeing some form of decrease in sales. That is just how the market works. Suggesting a business can just arbitrarily raise prices with no negative effects is about as ignorant as arbitrarily setting a minimum wage and expecting zero negative effects from the market.

Wages in a free market are ALWAYS set by the amount of available skilled and willing workers in the unemployment pool. Period. Not some PhD in a government think-tank.

At 7/9/2012 5:11:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:Contra, the current people with jobs are NOT (and will never be) affected by the minimum wage. The ones hurt the most are the unemployed; thus notion that increasing somebody's purchasing power from 0 actually decreases it is sheer nonsense.

Slavery is forced. No voluntary contract can be "slavery."

Eliminating the minimum wage reduces freedom for millions of Americans. So it is not far off. How can you preach freedom while millions of Americans must spend the majority of their time laboring their time away so they can survive?

And companies like Walmart would gladly reduce the employee wages, so they are more competitive. However, our prices would not benefit much, since labor only accounts for about 8% of total costs for the average private company.

I will provide a helpful analogy later.

What a crock of sh!t.

Suppose this situation:

Jon works at McDonalds. He makes $8 an hour. McDonalds sells 60 burgers an hour. For an increase in the minimum wage of $1, suppose McDonalds increases the wage for all the workers from $8 to $9. There are 9 workers at McDonalds getting this increase.Each burger costs $4.

So, the slight increase in prices results higher wages for all or most of the employees at McDonalds. At only a very slight increase in the price of the average burger. Most people would be fine paying this slight amount in order for the employees to live a more comfortable life, the competitiveness of McDonalds would not be adversely harmed, on the contrary, the employees would be more productive by many estimates and help reduce the negative effects to the employer.

Contra, with all due respect, you are pretty ignorant at basic economics.

I have gotten praise for my economics class grade.

You don't raise prices at low profit margin competitive fast food resturants without seeing some form of decrease in sales. That is just how the market works.

I know this. But, at only 15 cents increase per burger, you get other marginal benefits such as higher productivity, higher worker morale, etc. Plus, when dealing with fast food burgers, most people don't care about this extra 15 cents per burger, if they get the other benefits from the wage increase, as well as the service is good.

Suggesting a business can just arbitrarily raise prices with no negative effects is about as ignorant as arbitrarily setting a minimum wage and expecting zero negative effects from the market.

There would be some decrease in sales, but I doubt it would be that adverse.

Wages in a free market are ALWAYS set by the amount of available skilled and willing workers in the unemployment pool. Period. Not some PhD in a government think-tank.

Ha!

But not exactly in all cases. Maybe I should take advantage of this.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan